Tristan,

News reports tell us that the ALP conference voted unanimously for an IR policy requiring secret ballots of unionists before employees may take industrial action (but not secret ballots of shareholders before management can take industrial action by locking out employees), banning pattern bargaining and abandoning most of the allowable matters in awards pre-WorkChoices for Employers. The “Left” went along with all this. Any comments?

Dear Chris,

I think, on this occassion, we've gone to far for the sake of unity. I think on concerns of vital interest to the labour movement, the Left should have made a more principled stand. And I understand there are those who are concerned this might have undermined the leader. But we are still months out from a Federal election - and I don't think taking a stand at this stand would compromise our chances.

I know there were some in the Left who accepted the position on secret ballots. Some unions have already been operating on this basis for some time. This is still a worry, though, because for some it will put hostile employers in a good position to organise prior to any strike action. It's also bad because it supports the reactionary understanding that somehow unions 'force' workers into industrial action - and that you need this as a counter-measure.

But I'm surprised if a position banning pattern bargaining has got up in the platform. I know Rudd had committed on this issue, but people I spoke to seemed to think it wasn't a 'done deal' yet, and that a compromise might have been reached for the sake of unity.

I think pattern bargaining is by far the most disturbing issue issue - but I'd like you to point me to an up to date link to be sure. The issue of having less allowable matters... Already the ACTU had stopped short of asking for a return to the old system. With the 10 matters now protected (not sure what these are), the ACTU more or less got what it wanted.

But I agree this isn't enough. For less organised workers: the industrially weak, the protection of conditions under the old Award system was all they had. I think that we need a more more 'in depth' Award system if we are to protect the most vulnerable workers.

Tristan

Dear Tristan

I in no way am suggesting “a race to the bottom” or that all protective mechanisms be surrendered in the face of globalisation and the distinct differences between standards of living around the world.

However, I also would not suggest that the western world transplant their cost of living into an emerging populous or the unionisation of the third world to suit the idea of western socialism.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that Unions are the ONLY way. Let the individual countries define their own path and answer their own employment issues. They may find the answer in reactionary confrontation with the employers or they may by their own national or cultural personalities achieve employee protections out side of unionism.

Unions require constant “injustice” to perpetuate their “caring for the worker”, at a cost to the worker. Unionism in itself is a industry dependent on the labour of “exploited” workers to survive.

I don't pretend to have the perfect answer I am just one of a few observers who have noticed years after the collapse of colonialism which the left like to refer to as right wing hegemony, that today, the left in their perfect socialism want to export their ideology throughout the third world as benefactor, with out due consideration for the out come.

The way in which our society has developed is not by virtue of being ours necessarily the best way to manage social interaction. Transplanting our failures as a society is hardly beneficial to an emerging society that is made up of completely different cultural and religious and historical social norms.

I think employee negotiations are going to have to be rethought in the light of this fast changing world. Investors and employers have a lot more options now than, as I said earlier, 20-30yrs ago, and they aren't feeling any more patriotic than the socialist.

It's an injustice to ask the employer and the investor to “do it for the country”, while the worker and unionist are only doing it for their wallet

Tristan,

I don’t have a specific link. I relied on news reports that the conference passed the proposed IR policy unanimously and several earlier TV and printed news reports that said it would ban pattern bargaining. If that last requirement did not make it to the conference proposal, I am pleased. But there is still the issue of how a national conference of a political party can end up not having a single delegate vote in accordance with the beliefs of many, if not most, members of that party. But I am relaxed about it because I know that any members who complain will nonetheless vote for the same state conference factional delegates next time around any way who will then vote for the same factional national conference delegates again in order to produce another policy reversal that they, the members, will complain about again before…ad infinitum.

Dear Chris,

You're right that a lot of rank and file ALP members will vote for the same factional candidates regardless of that faction's track record on the Conference floor. But on the other hand, National Conference delegates from Victoria are not elected by the rank and file: they're elected by State Conference delegates - who are, in turn, controlled by factional leaders.

I think there would be more accountability were National Conference delegates elected at an FEA level by rank and file members. That way, at least delegates could be expected to run on platforms themselves - and could be held accountable at an FEA level.

I also worry because I'm not even sure that the Left is serious about 'getting the numbers' for Conference: as if we accept only the Right can make the hard decisions necessary to win government.

I would like to see more serious efforts made to split the Right vote on a permenant basis - giving rise to a new Centrist faction with which the Left could deal.

And I'd like to see a Centre faction that had a preference for dealing with the Left: who made the compromises necessary to win government, but who did not have the ideological commitment to neo-liberalism or the kind of naked opportunism that characterises the Right by and large today.

In short, I'd like to see a new alignment of forces under a genuinely social democratic program.

I say this on the understanding that democratic socialism and social democracy are really part of the same broad tradition.

Finally, I'd like to see the Draft Platform released more than a week before Conference. Several months before would be acceptable, not less. Without opportunity to debate proposals well in advance - and with last minute policies being put forward as if the leader's credibility rested upon it - then internal democracy really is a sham.

Tristan

Gday Belly!

Nice to see you here too mate. Your presence is missed over at the other forum. Spot on about the richly deserved electoral train-wreck. I can feel it coming on.

Yabby,

So the consumer hires the employee and the employer is just the middleman? That's an unusual claim. I didn't realise that the middleman's services came 100% free with the deal to the customer. I guess I just don't know anything about economics or business eh?

It always amuses me when CEO's on multi-million dollar salary packages bleat about workers pricing themselves out of the market, even if what they pay themselves bears little relationship to the actual profitability of the organisation. You would think that they would lead by example and reduce their own bloated pay packets - you know, for "the good of the company". I'm not suggesting that you can afford to pay yourself in the millions Yabby, I have no idea what you make. But I'm damn sure it isn't $0.00.